Blog For Arizona

Populism Consuming Representative Democracy

By Michael Bryan

Tucson's ballot initiative to peg the ratio of emergency personnel to population seems to me to be the latest iteration of populist discontent being cynically used to snatch at political power while denigrating and disempowering representative democracy.

Too frequently over the past few decades we have seen progressive institutions such as the ballot initiative used to tie the hands of representative government. There are many examples of extremely unwise, but politically facile policy created using populist sentiments: the Prop 13 property tax freeze in California and the disastrous Taxpayer's Bill of Rights arbitrarily limiting the growth of government expenditures in Colorado being chief among them.

In each case, what seems like an easy fix for the difficult and messy business of governance is sold as patent medicine for what ails the body politic. Only later does it become apparent the snake oil contains toxic waste.

There are no easy answers or simple formulas for good governance. Wise policy requires democratic debate and tough deliberation over alternatives, not simplistic slogans and expedient but static 'fixes'.

Every time that the populists tout their latest gee-wiz gew-gaw, they chip away at the power and accountability of representative democracy. By taking the power to make policy and actually govern out of the hands of our elected representatives, we only assure that the accountability and esteem of our elected representatives will further decline.

This latest iteration of this populist disease is the Public Safety First! initiative. By arbitrarily requiring a particular ratio of emergency personnel to population, the representative system by which public preferences for such matters ought to be expressed is bypassed. The fact that all the Republican challengers support this attempt to remove public safety decisions from the very democratically elected body they are seeking to become members of should tell you something about their opinion of the institution, and their philosophy of government.

What gets lost in all the rhetoric about crime in Tucson is that Arizona's communities already spend the most per capita of any state in the nation on crime control, save Nevada. Our communities already struggle under a high financial burden, yet those supporting Prop 200 would have us spend even more in vain.

Reductions in crime will not come from more police and more courts and more prisons. Effective crime control will come from better education, more economic opportunity, a vital civic community, and strong families. Prop 200 does nothing to pursue those goals; indeed, it only assures that less resources are available for those priorities.

The last thing we should do is hand representative political power to those who do not value or respect it, or worse, advocate to strip our democratic institutions of their powers. We cannot fix complex social problems with the blunt instruments of funding formulas and populist slogans. 

It is the American way to solve our problems by confronting them as a free and democratic society, served by those among us who are genuinely interested in coming together to debate and negotiate the best solutions possible. Representative democracy is a wonderful and powerful institution, we mustn't allow rank populist rage to bleed it of its vitality.

Water and Arizona's Future

By Karl Reiner

The water level in the Colorado River’s storage lakes has been steadily dropping, leading to the possibility that Tucson will face a water shortage in the future.  As consumers of local ground water and supplies from the Colorado, we need to start paying attention to the problem.  The combined effects of population growth, drought and global warming trends are turning the region’s water future murky.

 

A recent government report on climate change states that global warming has already brought about some climate modifications.  Man-made pollution composed of greenhouse gas emissions was found to be the main cause behind higher average temperatures in the Midwest.  The increased warming has extended the growing season by a week. It also caused more frequent heavy rain storms.

 

The report warns that these changes are only the beginning.  We will face more serious consequences if emissions are not restricted.  If the warming trend is allowed to continue, temperatures across the U.S. are projected to rise by 4 to 11 degrees by 2100.  As the temperature rises, some areas such as Arizona will become drier. 

 

In the United Kingdom, worried scientists want to undertake research to find ways to reverse the global warming process. If the world’s governments can’t agree on programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they want to start developing technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reflect sunlight back into space.

 

A normal summer monsoon delivers about six inches of rain to the Tucson area.  As has often been the case in recent years, this year’s monsoon rains fell short.  Rainfall was about half of the amount that should have fallen during the June to September season.  At the end of September, precipitation in most of the metropolitan area was three inches below normal.   

 

This year’s failed monsoon may be a continuation of the drought that has been plaguing Tucson for 10 years.  Some weather observers believe the drought could drag on for another 20 years. They see evidence linking the current dry period to a reoccurring drought pattern that has come and gone for the past 1,000 years. It is believed that the warming trend brought by climate change could worsen the drought pattern. 

 

Drought has upended societies in the past.  It was a factor contributing to the decline of the Hohokam culture in the early 1400’s.  Prior to its demise, Hohokam society had developed fairly sophisticated irrigation and farming techniques.  The structural ruins that remained after the Hohokam disappeared impressed and puzzled the early Spanish explorers as they traversed the region.

 

The $3.6 billion Central Arizona Project (CAP) is designed to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year from Lake Havasu to Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties. (An acre-foot of water equates to 325,851 gallons.)  Water travels a distance of 336 miles through a system terminating 14 miles south of Tucson. 

 

When the Colorado’s water was liberally allocated to the using states, very little was known about reoccurring drought patterns and the effects of climate change.  If runoff in the Colorado River’s watershed continues to decline, water deliveries will have to be reduced.  Depending on the severity of the drop in runoff, planners believe deliveries to Phoenix and Tucson might have to be reduced by a third or half in the future. 

 

While there is disagreement among the experts as to the causes, timing and severity of the looming water shortage, there is a general consensus that Colorado River water will be increasingly in short supply as time goes by.  Some scientists believe that if the current trend holds, the Colorado could be running extremely low by 2050.   

 

Due to the lack of recharging rains, Tucson’s groundwater supplies will also diminish.  As overall water availability declines, we will have to start looking to the costly solutions other nations have implemented.  One country that has been dealing with water problems for years is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

 

About the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, Saudi Arabia is home to one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.  The ample store of oil ensures that the Kingdom will remain among the world’s top oil exporters for the foreseeable future.  Although the country can be said to be floating in oil, it is short of water.  Being more arid than Arizona, securing a stable water supply has always been a concern.

 

To meet the country’s needs, Saudi Arabia has been seriously investing in desalination technology since the late 1970s.  Over time, it has become the world’s largest producer of desalinated water, accounting for 26% of world production.  There are 30 desalination plants in operation on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea and Persian Gulf coasts.  To meet future demand, Saudi Arabia is expected to invest $90 billion in water and sewage systems over the next 20 years.

 

One of the world’s largest desalination plants is located at Jubail on Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast. The massive complex produces 50% of the nation’s drinking water.  The plant supplies two pipelines that move desalinated water 290 miles inland to Riyadh, the capital.

 

The Jubail-Riyadh system of pipelines and pumping stations delivers 210 million gallons of water per day.  Since Riyadh, with a population of approximately six million, suffers severely from declining ground water sources, the water from Jubail has become vital to the city’s ability to function.

 

If the dire predictions of a water shortage come true in southern Arizona, our closest source of ocean water is less than 200 miles away, along the coast of the Gulf of California in Mexico’s state of Sonora.  If we have to start scrambling to get salt water processed and delivered to Tucson’s taps, our water utilities will be rushing to participate in joint ventures in Mexico to build the desalination plants and pipelines needed to serve Sonora and Arizona.

 

With the cost of desalinated water running about 10 times the cost of current supplies, our water use habits will drastically change.  We will stop taking water for granted and have to treat it as a finite resource.  The massive increase in price will focus attention on conserving and reclaiming every available drop. 

 

Unlike the Hohokam, we will have access to technology that can help prevent a disaster.  While expensive desalination technology can provide for urban needs, it cannot support much agriculture.  As a consequence, a drying climate will bring massive changes to Arizona’s economy.  Regrettably, much of the change will not be good. 

Arizona's Own Death Panels

by Michael Bryan

You would think that the idea of condemning people to death by withholding medical treatment would be pretty abhorrent to just about everyone. That is certainly what conservatives are banking on with their invocation of mythical 'death panels' that was supposedly a feature of the health reform legislation before Congress.

You would think, then, that they would be rather sensitive of anything that smacks of euthanasia here at home. You would be wrong. Here in Arizona it is perfectly legal to let a person who cannot care for himself die by withholding medical care - as long as you pray for them to be miraculously healed.

Many states have statutes that make it a crime to allow a vulnerable adult or child to come to harm through neglect, including withholding needed medical care. A vulnerable adult is mentally or physically impaired person who cannot protect himself from neglect, abuse, or exploitation, such as a person who is gravely ill. Here in Arizona that statute is the Child and Vulnerable Adult Abuse Act.

However, there are some exceptions to criminal liability for allowing harm to come to vulnerable adults. One is, sensibly, medical providers who are withholding care pursuant to the patient's own refusal or an advance health care directive.

The second is quite extraordinary:

"E. This section does not apply to:

...

2. A vulnerable adult who is being furnished spiritual treatment through prayer alone and who would not otherwise be considered to be abused, neglected or endangered if medical treatment were being furnished."

So, in Arizona, you can withhold needed medical care that would save a person's life, even if they don't consent, so long as you pray for them.

Maybe health insurance companies should set up prayer groups to pray for the recovery of the folks they deny treatment through pre-existing rulings and rescission of their policies. We could call those prayer groups 'death panels' with a straight face.

To me, this exception is outrageous. Are Christian Scientists such a powerful lobby in Arizona that their wacky beliefs about medicine merit an exception in our criminal code? Note that this exception doesn't apply to children, just vulnerable adults. It's not OK to let your children die by denying them medical care, but grandma is fair game, apparently. Or were Arizona's conservatives looking ahead to day when insurance companies needed a cheap way to get away with the moral equivalent of murder?

"Yeah, we denied that life-saving procedure and the patient died, but we prayed for him to get better!"

I wonder how many conservatives will jump to the defense of Arizona's own 'death panels' of the prayerful in the comments?

Left blogosphere often gets it right -- and first

by David Safier
Tedski over at R-Cubed gave himself some well deserved credit for being right about the federal investigation into Rick Renzi's wrong doings back in 2006. The Bush administration was scrambling to keep the investigation quiet, at least until after the election, and the Republic bit on the White House spin.

If the left side of the blogosphere were a hit and miss place that sees its job as carrying the Democratic Party's water, I wouldn't pay any attention to it any more than the traditional media seems to. But as a regular, intense reader of some of the best national blogs that come from the left, I know that they're very careful about getting it right and scrupulous about admitting quickly when they got it wrong, which isn't often. Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo was all over the Justice Department firings while the MSM kept saying, "Nothing to see here." He was right, and today, the story, implicating Rove and the rest of the rogue's gallery, is the story of the day. I see this again and again. Months later, sometimes years later, the MSM "discovers" a story that had been explored at length on the lefty blogs.

It happens at the national level, and it happens here in Arizona. It's time that the rest of the media assigns someone to look through the blogs for real stories -- not just the often nonsensical right wing blather on Drudge (that's where you find the pure spin the Rs want to get into circulation, and manage to get into the discussion with maddening success) -- and send someone out looking to see if there's anything to the stories they haven't seen fit to cover. More often than not, there is.

40th in the nation for child well being

by David Safier
This report makes my insides ache.

A national report released Tuesday ranks Arizona 40th in the nation on 10 indicators of child well-being, including education, death rates and poverty.

It is the third consecutive year the state's ranking has slipped in the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation's annual "Kids Count" report.

Arizona's teen death rate, tied with Arkansas for worst in the nation, helped push the state's overall ranking down from 39th place last year, said Amy Kobeta, vice president of the Children's Action Alliance of Phoenix.

Our horrific ranking is driven by teen death rate, number of births to teens, high school drop out rates and the number of teens out of school who aren't working.

Could things actually be worse than the study indicates? Maybe so.

Study coordinators warn that the real-world numbers may be much worse, because the report is compiled from 2006 and 2007 data.

This report comes out as the state legislature plans to slash funding for services to at risk populations.

Let me ask a question. Are we more likely to attract good businesses to Arizona and stimulate our flagging economy by cutting taxes and racing to the bottom or by creating a state people can be proud to live in?

Jon Kyl, Professional Hypocrite

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl loves nothing more than an opportunity to denounce earmarks (and to insinuate that they are a Democratic phenominon). Unfortunately, Jon Kyl also loves him some earmarks.

Take a look-see:

AZ AG Terry Goddard Ready for Debate on Legal Pot

by Michael Bryan

Terry Goddard's measure of political courage just went up slightly in my estimation: he went on national TV and suggested that this country should look seriously at the merits of legalizing marijuana to cut off the flow of money to drug cartels fueling violence along the Mexican border and throughout Mexico.

He backfills immediately by claiming that he is not personally in favor of legalization, but only that there should be a debate. Well, is Terry going to play a role in that debate? He doesn't say.

Well, Terry, if you're listening, here's your invitation to debate the issue. Myself, or any advocate of legalization you prefer, versus you. Anytime. Anywhere. Maybe here on this blog. I will certainly post any statement or responses from you or your office. Let's have that debate.

I'd love to hear why Goddard is not personally in favor of legalization. Knowing as he does how thinly stretched our enforcement and prosecutorial resources are, how porous our border is, how much of the Mexican cartel's income stems from the illegal profits from pot (Goddard claims 70%, though how he knows that is beyond me), and given the historical lessons regarding the effects of alcohol prohibition on crime in this country and the objective scientific evidence that pot is much less harmful than legal indulgences such as tobacco and alcohol, why does Goddard oppose legalization other than mere political caution?

Right now 44% of Americans support legalization - not a majority opinion - so of course politicians are skittish about coming out for pot. But in Western states, that percentage trends up to as much as 58%. Considering the strength of Western public support and what he has seen and learned as Attoney General of Arizona, I don't understand why Goddard doesn't lead from the front rather than the rear on this issue.

With U.S. Attorney General Holder finally halting the deplorable Federal raids that had been defying state legislative action to rationalize marijuana policy in their jurisdictions, now is the perfect time for a border state like Arizona to re-examine its own policies. At the very least, perhaps we could stop treating sick people as criminals in 2010. Maybe we can even embrace some decriminalization such as that which garnered the support of 43% of voters in 2002's Prop 203, despite furious opposition from all sides of the political establishment.

If ever this nation is going to seriously reform our drug laws, it must happen now that progressive forces are in ascendancy. And it has to happen from the ground up. Eight states repealed prohibition before the ball got rolling in the Federal government. There must a groundswell that forces the risk-averse to side with reason.

Terry, you took a positive step by seving up the legalization ball. Do you have the political courage to return the ball when volleyed?

Karl Reiner: There is a war raging in our backyard

By Karl Reiner

The production and distribution of illegal drugs is big business. According to estimates compiled by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, American consumers spend about $65 billion per year on illegal drug products. If the illegal drug trade was ranked as an American business, it would be among the nation’s 30 largest enterprises. Its annual dollar volume would put it in 28^th place, producing slightly less revenue than Boeing and just ahead of COSTCO.

The illegal drug business operates with low overhead costs, pays virtually nothing in taxes and employs a quick and brutal method of resolving disputes among vendors and customers. Even when the losses inflicted by law enforcement are factored in, the return on investment is high. Despite the risks, the drug trade will always attract people primarily interested in large monetary gains.

Although some Tucsonans may be unaware of the problem, the 350 mile Arizona-Mexico border has become a haven for some of the Mexican trafficking organizations servicing the illegal drug market in the United States. Located only 65 miles from the border, Tucson is considered by the Drug Enforcement Administration to be a transshipment hub for a portion of the cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine smuggled into Arizona.

The contraband moves across the border hidden in commercial trucks and private vehicles. As an alternative shipping method, it is transported through rough border terrain areas on pack animals and by human backpackers. Although local drug production is reported to be minimal, Tucson is a site where illegal drugs are warehoused prior to distribution to other stateside locations.

The slowing national economy is not having much of an effect on the drug trade. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports a 200 percent increase in the amount of heroin seized at Arizona’s ports of entry thus far in 2008. Due to the lucrative nature of the U.S. market, competition is ferocious in the drug underworld. In Mexico, rival gangs are battling each other for control of the transportation routes.

Prodded into action by the U.S. government after years of ignoring the problem, Mexican authorities are now attempting to suppress the traffickers. Army units have been deployed to support the police. More than 48,000 traffickers have been reported arrested in Mexico since late 2006.

The drug lords are hitting back, often killing at will. The chief of Sonora’s state police was ambushed and killed in Nogales, Sonora in early November. The highly respected officer was one of the latest casualties in the escalating fight between the powerful drug cartels and law enforcement.

Through November, the city has suffered 103 confirmed homicides, up from 52 for the entire year 2007. The new murder rate record is a cause for concern. As a consequence of the spreading violence, the State Department added Nogales, Senora to its travel alert list. The travel warning has hurt the city’s once vibrant tourist business because the number of visitors from Arizona has drastically dropped.

As the drug gangs fight with each other for control of the profitable routes into the United States and resist the government’s effort to crack down on organized crime, casualties soar. Across Mexico, over 4,000 people have been killed thus far this year. By way of comparison, the U.S. has suffered 4,207 military deaths in Iraq since 2003.

The drug mobs have amassed massive amounts of money and firepower, enabling them to often outgun the police. Mexican officials point out that many of the 24,000 illegal firearms they have seized originated in the United States.

Awash in ill-gotten cash, the mobs have the ability to corrupt officials at the highest level. In one of the latest scandals, senior officials in the Mexican attorney general’s office and an employee of the U.S. Embassy were arrested for cooperating with the mobs.

Mexican authorities have begun moving to clean up the country’s scandalously corrupt police forces. Mexican President Calderon has candidly agreed with estimates that about half of the members of the state and local police forces are untrustworthy and that the federal service is riddled with corrupt officers.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government released $197 million of a $400 million aid package to Mexico. Providing equipment sorely needed in the drug battle, it is an indication of a closer and more cooperative effort by the two governments as they attempt to deal with the problem.

Tucson police believe drug-related crime is responsible in part for Tucson’s soaring homicide rate. The residents of Tucson have reason to feel less secure. If the ongoing struggle along the border slides up the supply chain, we should be prepared to see an increase in violence in Tucson.

James E. Lamb, Jr.: What I Learned Running Ephraim Cruz's LD 29 Campaign

Editor: I asked James to reflect on his experience running a local legislative race, this is the report he filed.

By James E. Lamb, Jr.

Make no mistake – Tucson Democrats rejected my candidate, Ephraim Cruz. Out of seven candidates, Mr. Cruz won sixth place, only ahead of the nonexistent campaign of Gil Guerra. Yet our campaign visited over five thousand households in District 29, spent $21,875.00 in campaign funds, and mobilized volunteers throughout the blistering summer months to contact voters directly about Ephraim Cruz’s message for change in Southern Arizona. Our mechanics proved effective; voters heard our radio advertisements, saw our television commercial, received our mailing, read our flyers, noticed our door hangers, and spoke with our campaign volunteers, often on multiple occasions.  None of it worked.

For five months this year, I served as Ephraim Cruz’s Campaign Manager, and devised and executed Cruz for District 29’s strategy and ground operations during the District 29 Democratic Party primary. Since September 2nd, I’ve grappled with one major question: what does the outcome of the District 29 Democratic Party State Representative primary say about local politics? I fear that Ephraim Cruz’s sobering loss in the September 2nd Democratic Party primary speaks to our community’s failures to forge and maintain an open and diverse Pima County Democratic Party, where local progressives, liberals and moderate Democrats band together to solve our community’s problems, including abysmal state spending on public education, disheartening unemployment and underemployment concerns, and serious misuse of our state’s finite natural resources.

Yes, the Democratic Party’s foremost interest involves electing Democrats to public office, but each and every one of us should scrutinize our electoral candidates to ensure that the Democrats we elect are the Democrats we need. I supported Ephraim Cruz because Ephraim Cruz is a Democrat who fought for those without power and privilege under our system, who suffered loss of income, influence and reputation to respect the human and civil rights of those less fortunate. Ephraim Cruz is a good man, but good men often make terrible candidates for higher office. None of us desire the Democrat who simply parrots liberal talking points before liberal audiences like a patronizing Pinocchio jerkily animated by a low-budget James Carville wannabe in Geppetto drag.

Bottom line: a local campaign revolves around using political action to help one’s neighbors. Most political candidates sound inauthentic, flat, and bored with their own dogma because candidates begin their unlikely sojourn in local politics filled with immense ambition and little else. Certainly Democratic candidates are decent folk who want clean air, low health insurance premiums for all and microwavable chicken dinners in every refrigerator, but most begin their campaigns with a benign abstractness about the entire deal, outside of their pet projects. Then they can’t shut up.

If you haven't seen the debate (streaming video), you should: one candidate pontificates like he’s the world’s foremost expert on immigration policy, another waxes philosophical on legislative minutia. One candidate pleases every special interest group in attendance, a sycophant to both the AFL-CIO and Greenpeace, and another reiterates his credentials and signature issue every two seconds like a skipping Celine Dion compact disc.

Pet projects alone do not imply a sensible, community-focused grasp of local public policy. Attending that debate was like watching cable television with an eleven year old Halo aficionado raised on Pop Tarts and Pop Rocks, all sugar rush and no staying power. One second Jorge Ramos debates militarized borders with Lou Dobbs, the next Luca and Abby fight to save their newborn baby on a syndicated episode of ER. It was ridiculous. Candidates talked past each other and their intended audience, with dissonant white noise the only discernible sound. The debate was a comically insane and wholly typical exchange of domestic Southern Arizona policy proscriptions, all the more laughable because only the barest fraction of the candidate’s proposals had anything to do with the residents of District 29.

Want to know what I learned? Our elected officials should reflect who we are and where we live. Anyone who purports to represent your interests should be able to logically and succinctly discuss those interests in public, and not himself ad nauseam. Local elections, in my opinion, are the largest contributor to voter apathy, because here the orthodox political commentary monopoly respects only pathetic micro-targeting and closed-circuit networking campaigns when candidates win friends and influence voters. Nothing more.

Average voters are not seriously asked to participate – not by their local media, and not by their local political parties. It’s not hard to get people interested: talk about what they care about, not what the Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood or the Arizona Education Association wants you to care about. In District 29, no one cares about the food you grow at home or the hybrid car you drive – especially when a collegiate student body president is shot a few blocks from where you live. Don’t tell me about the bed and breakfast statutes you’ve changed during your time in office when Tucsonans are laid off from their jobs all over.

Frankly, it became too simple to ignore the interests of the residents of District 29 in the mad dash to appeal to the small subset of plugged-in, Establishment Democratic voters in District 29 – invariably elderly, White voters who enjoy the leisure of middle-class retirement. You can learn all manner of useful information about a place just by walking around the neighborhood, and I learned that much of South and Southeast Tucson is filled with neglected neighborhoods, where people fend for themselves and nothing ever really changes.

I’ll never forget: one Saturday my girlfriend and I canvassed Democrats in a South Tucson neighborhood filled with Richard Elias & Ramon Valadez signs, pit bulls, iron barred windows, liquor stores, and eight foot tall wire and iron fencing around every home. Every single home. You can’t canvass folk you can’t reach, and the dogs and fences obstructed more than we would have liked. Throughout that day, however, the Unisource Energy Tower, the tallest office building I’ve seen in Tucson, home to the New York Life Insurance Company, thrust itself above these lower middle class homes, a mocking portrait of glass and steel opulence, Southern Arizona’s answer to Mount Olympus.

That’s the most galling part of this story. We Democrats know the local problems, and how to fix them. When schools suffer from anemic public funding and nonexistent public interest, we Democrats know who is hurt, and who is hurt most abundantly. We Democrats know who is most affected by rising gas prices and urban sprawl. We Democrats know who has health insurance, and who needs AHCCCS. We Democrats know that in Tucson, statistically speaking, the darker one’s skin, the smaller one’s opportunity.

But we steadfastly refuse to discuss these issues during election season, to inform our fellow citizens of the reasons economic calamities befall them, and what they can do about it. We allow our elections to revolve around the simple and the mundane, the meaningless and the comical, the prurient and the personal. We cheapen the suffrage too many fight and bleed and die for when our politics devolves into the childish bickering and underdeveloped thinking that usually characterize local politics throughout our tortured and resilient county.

All the election integrity advocates in Pima County have it wrong. I do not doubt their sincerity when they push for clean and fair and auditable elections, but the most glaring and serious threat to local democracy in Pima County is voter apathy. People do not care about voting in Tucson. What Brad Nelson and Chuck Huckleberry do with the vote after its cast isn’t really relevant when the vote itself approaches numerical insignificance. All the suppression in the world isn’t as strong as a voter’s conviction that his vote does not matter enough to change anything.

In District 29, 31,588 citizens are registered Democrats, yet only 8,797 voted in the September 2nd primary, with seven candidates. I toured polling places throughout District 29 on election day, only to find that with only a few hours left at some of the largest districts, barely fifty or sixty people total showed up to vote all day long. Really, if a voter didn’t already personally know a candidate, or have some connection to the local Democratic Party or a local special interest group, chances are they didn’t even know that September 2nd was Election Day.

Senator Barack Obama famously ripped author Alice Walker in a recent speech when he pronounced “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” Maybe that’s true. But we are also the problem we’ve been avoiding. Public outreach to increase both registered Democrats and voter turnout could provide the majorities we need in Phoenix to actually fix the public education and health care access issues that so plague this state. Get involved.

Duelling Conventions Answer Key Questions

by John Adams

We have seen the past two weeks the best presentation of our Party’s message in Denver, contrasted with the best presentation the Republicans could muster in St. Paul. The results are starkly impressive.

Let’s consider some of the questions posed about our two Campaigns just a few short weeks ago...and answered so well by the duelling Conventions.

Can our Democratic Party unite?  Honestly, can anyone who watched the collective leadership of our Party speak at Denver seriously question whether we are united today?

Does our Party have the national security credentials to keep America safe in this dangerous world?  Not only did we put national security issues -- and endorsements of veterans, military leaders, and national security policymakers -- front-and-center last week in Denver, but it’s clear once again from McCain’s bellicose and feckless rhetoric on Georgia these past weeks that he has neither the temperament nor the strategic sense to deal with the critical questions of war and peace.

Barack Obama’s national security message at Denver was three-fold, highlighting his judgment, competence, and most of all trustworthiness in addressing American national security.  Barack knows that American national security is related to both the strength and intelligence with which America addresses complex challenges of this century.  And Barack knows we need to muster all elements of our national power, including a strong, ready military, but reserving it for the last resort, after we’ve tried diplomacy and all the other tools at our disposal.  For their part, veterans know, as is obvious from the numerous powerful endorsements in Denver, that they can trust Barack Obama to honor their service when they come home. Growing thousands of national security experts, veterans and family members, many of whom were out front in Denver, are adding their enthusiastic endorsement of Barack as our next Commander-in-Chief.

Contrast this with the central message of John McCain…that the belligerent and reckless strategy of the Bush Administration over the past eight years should not only be continued, but that it was too timid. If you listened to McCain pop off in Fall 2001, we should have attacked Iraq, Iran and Syria in response to 9-11. If you listened to McCain in 2003, our adversaries included France and Germany in addition to Iraq. John McCain wants to keep American troops in Iraq for as much as 100 years. And John McCain actually jokes publicly about bombing Iran. Simply speaking, John McCain lacks strategic sense, and lacks the temperament befitting a Commander-in-Chief.

And what about McCain’s allegations these past months that Barack lacks experience? Well, John McCain must have had a senior moment last Friday when he settled on Sarah Palin’s resume.

Again, nothing is more important for a President than the decisions on war and peace…and for this reason alone, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin is alarming. Yes, as the renowned Fox News scholar Steve Doucy has said, she is the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia. Some recommendation.

Palin is truly a foreign policy blank slate, ripe for neocon engraving.

Actuarial tables and American history tell us that Palin has a nearly even chance of acceding to the Presidency…in McCain’s first term. In selecting Palin, John McCain confirmed once again that his judgment is seriously impaired.

So truly, we Democrats had a great Convention…full of substance and full of energy. We are fired up and ready to go!

We have a powerful, compelling message for the American people and the world, that addresses the real challenges Americans face at home and abroad. We have brilliant, convincing nominees in Barack Obama and Joe Biden…and they’re out front in the polls as well as in the electoral vote forecasts.

We’re going to coast to victory in November, right?

Unfortunately, assuming victory at this stage is absolute lunacy.

Not only are the stakes far too high to take anything for granted, but we can expect the Republicans to do whatever they have to do to retain the White House. They will pull out all the stops.

And the greatest enemy we face is not the Republicans, but voter apathy.

The real lesson of the duelling Conventions, for this first-time Delegate, is that now more than ever, it’s important to take the energy, the enthusiasm, the issues, and the facts back home to our neighborhoods here in Arizona. The work that good Democrats do every day, the canvassing, the phone-banking, the discussions with your friends and neighbors…that hard work is what will get us to victory in November.

Our hard work will bring John McCain “home”, wherever that is, because we must not let him occupy the White House.

And only our hard work will elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

We will win this election, not because the polls and pundits say we will, but because of the hard work of everyone in the Party, pulling together these next few weeks. For my part, I’m looking forward to marching with you, to our battle with the Republicans, and to our victory in November.

Republicans Attack Clean Elections from a New Angle

The "Goldwater" Institute is leading yet another futile crusade against Arizona's popular and successful Clean Elections public finance system. This time several "traditionally" funded candidates are pewling about their civil rights being infringed upon by other candidates (their opponents) getting public funds. The "Goldwater" Institute saw the recent Supreme Court decision in Davis v. FEC and thought they saw an line of a attack on Arizona's Clean Elections: they are deluded.

Other blogs and even the mainstream media, not to mention those between the two extremes, have been reporting that the Goldwater suit has been successful and that the matching funds portion of Clean Elections have been declared unconstitutional. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. It just shows how little the mainstream press and some bloggers understand the legal process. Judge Silver issued an order (PDF) which recognized a likelihood of success of the merits, but denied an injunction of the Clean Elections system. The judge merely ruled that the plaintiffs MIGHT succeed on the merits - not that they have. And the Judge is wrong to boot and will undoubtedly reform her view of the law when there has been a chance for the parties to argue the matter properly.

John McComish, Nancy McLain, Kevin Gibbons, Frank Antenori, Tony Bouie, and Doug Sposito are the "traditional" pols who want an end to publicly financed candidates receiving matching funds to keep them competitive with those who are using private money. They do have a point. There are circumstances when the matching fund provisions end up favoring the Clean candidates, especially when there is more than one "traditionally" funded candidate in a race. And the small charge-off for expenses that is deducted from matching funds probably is unrealistically low. But these are details and are eminently within the power of the Arizona legislature to fix, since those changes would conform to the intent of the voters in passing Clean Elections. Instead of a fix, the politico-plaintiff's lawsuit seeks to invalidate the entire section of Clean Elections dealing with matching funds. They aren't reformers pointing out some problems, they're vandals seeking to overturn the will of Arizona's voters through the courts. Isn't that "judicial activism" in conservative parlance? Most importantly, do these problems constitute a violation of the civil rights of "traditional" candidates like the plaintiffs?

The answer is clearly "no". For those familiar with the case law let me lay out the most fundamental case: Clean Elections does not impose any additional limits on contributions, and certainly not asymmetric ones as in Davis; matching funds do not reduce the speech rights of "traditionally" funded candidates; and equalizing access to political speech is a valid governmental goal that has never been rejected by the courts.

At first glance the Goldwater suit against the matching funds provisions of Clean Elections has some merit. The Supreme Court has recently struck down some provisions of BICRA that concerned self-financing candidates in Davis, just as Clean Elections' matching funds provisions concern self- and "traditionally" funded candidates. But the similarities and underlying constitutional issues stop at the surface. A closer look at Supreme Court precedents and the Goldwater's allegations against Clean Elections clearly show that unlike the BICRA provisions, Clean Elections matching funds provisions do not impose any limits on contributions, and do not reduce to the freedom of "traditionals" to spend (i.e. speak in the unfortunate Buckley equivalence)

The central allegation of the suit is that equalizing funding to publicly financed candidates, which is the purpose of the matching fund provisions, is not a permissible governmental goal. The courts have never held this to be the case, and given the courts' deference to management of the political system generally ceded to the legislature, likely never will. It is true that so far only avoiding corruption of the appearance of corruption is recognized by Davis as a valid purpose for limiting contributions, but for the Arizona Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court to strike down the matching fund provisions of Clean Elections, the courts would have to blaze new doctrinal ground and significantly limit the constitutional powers of legislatures. They would have to declare the legislatures cannot act to equalize funding. That would be a major doctrinal innovation and a major new limit on legislative authority over the political process. It's just not going to happen in my view. Rather, the point of this suit seems to be to raise funds for the Goldwater Institute, and get conservative ink for the candidates, not to the win the case.

The most concrete example of harm to the plaintiffs raised by their brief is merely speculative, and oddly psychological. They claim that the speech of "traditional" candidates is chilled by the fear that by raising and spending additional funds to promote their messages, they are giving their opponents money. The problem is that speech is not really a finite good. More for me does not mean less for you. If "traditional" candidates are so concerned about their opponents' messages to voters that they are willing to stifle their own, they can't have much confidence in the superiority of their views. Their money having a multiplier effect on the speech available to all candidates shouldn't affect the "traditional" candidate's speech at all. If it does, well... that really their problem, not a Constitutional crisis. Get over yourselves, plaintiffs. Your feelings are not constitutionally significant.

The system of matching funds clearly has some inequities that need to be addressed. There are pernicious side-effects and loopholes that can be exploited by the unscrupulous, but these are within the power of our legislature to fix. The legislature could further the will of the voters and provide a better Clean Elections system, but they don't want to do that: they would prefer to work to destroy what Arizona's citizens have created. Instead of incremental improvement, movement conservatives are set on exploiting problems to try to undermine and destroy the system.

If the plaintiffs and the Goldwater Institute were serious about addressing the problems of Clean Elections, I would be the first to support their efforts. But the problems of Clean Elections do not mean it is unconstitutional, nor do they undermine the benefits and resounding success of Arizona's Clean Elections system. The greatest irony perhaps is that those who have benefited the most of Clean Elections - movement conservatives - are the very people most adamantly opposed to it. Clean Elections has significantly broadened the range of political choices and the opportunities to be politically involved in Arizona (often to my chagrin), and Arizonans are right to be proud of that system.

Obama y Biden - Que Viva "Change We Can Believe In!"

by John Adams

Dateline Denver, the 2008 Democratic National Convention...staging ground for victory for the American people in November.

Why Joe Biden?

Let's ask the neocon icon, Mr. William Kristol, his thoughts on the question:  "There's lots to like about Barack's choice of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate: Biden's bowling score, honed by years of practice...now that will help the ticket."

OK, I admit I didn't ask the unctuous, reptilian Kristol to answer the question...rather I overheard the above flippant BS as Bill K spoke to one of his slobbering minions in the lobby here at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center...I like this hotel lots, but why couldn't they book better peeps than Fox News to share OUR delegation's convention residence?

But that begs the question, why is Joe Biden such a good choice as Barack's running mate?

1) Biden is a fighter.  After all, we're in for the political struggle of our lives over the next couple of months, and Biden is proven in battle.  Great message for all of us on the campaign...it's time to take the offensive.  McCain's earned whatever we throw at him...Biden's already firing fastballs.  This convention is all about marshaling our resources to take on McCain and the Republicans, and Biden's strong, sharp attacking style is just what we need.

2) Biden is grounded.  He knows personal adversity, he knows public adversity, and like Barack, he understands what it's like to have to work hard to make it in America.  He wasn't born rich, he's not now, and he has no problem answering questions like how many homes he has.

3) Biden knows the stakes for this election: War and Peace.  Wannabe Emperor McCain doesn't understand how unsafe the Iraq War has made America; in fact, he's spoiling for a new war with Iran.  On the other hand, like Barack, Biden knows that the issue of war and peace is the most important question facing any President, and he's determined to keep us safe and at peace.  Like Barack, he has the courage to oppose the war-mongers who continue wasting American blood and treasure in Iraq...and he has the courage to oppose the twisted ideologues who want to expand the conflict to Iran.  Biden knows the world, he knows the value of diplomacy, he knows the risks of war, and he knows the importance of peace not only to restoring America's place in the world, but to healing our suffering economy.  In the Senate, Biden's proven himself to be an insightful expert in foreign policy and issues of national security.  He'll bring these talents to the campaign, and to the Office of Vice President. 

4) Biden's ready to lead now...dedicated to his role as Barack's Number 2.  Biden is a strong, forward-looking Vice Presidential candidate who's dedicated to electing Barack Obama this fall, and to serving the Constitution as Vice President, rather than as some sort of co-President.  If the situation ever arose, Biden will be ready to step up to the White House, but he respects and is dedicated to Barack Obama as the leader of our movement and as our next President.

5) Biden's selection is well-timed.  Of course, we always expected to know the selection prior to the convention kickoff, and thank God for that.  Next week in Denver is about moving forward, about winning the election, and restoring our country to the American people.  Biden's selection puts to rest one of the most often-cited issues for many who've had trouble putting the primary season behind them...we need to move on, and having a strong, talented running mate helps us do that. 

After the night of the past eight years, it will be wonderful to have a Vice President who serves the Constitution and is dedicated to preserving American national security.

Barack Obama leads a movement that will bring change to our deserving people -- now he's selected an excellent Vice Presidential nominee to accelerate our victory in November.

And as for our hotel-mates at Fox...I expect I'll hear more lame drivel over the next few days from Bill Kristol, Bill O, or one of the other Fox News idiots...but perhaps I should spare you more of that...

The Convention starts officially on Monday, and with the good news of Senator Joe Biden's selection to complete our White House ticket, we in the Arizona Delegation are ready to help ensure Hope becomes Fulfillment this November.

Rio Nuevo or Bust

By Michael Bryan

I've been hearing a lot of hostility to Rio Nuevo from conservatives of late. Perhaps much of it is merely conservatives seeing an opening to attack the liberally-dominated Tucson City Council based on the legitimate criticism of how Rio Nuevo funds have been spent so far. Such criticism of implementation is certainly justified, and I have engaged in criticism of the lack of accountability and transparency in how that money is being spent myself, but it is not a reason to attack the funding of Rio Nuevo.

There are two issues here: the program and its implementation. You can support the program (using a Tax Increment Finance district to keep Tucson sales taxes in Tucson for downtown redevelopment) and criticize the implementation (how the City government is handling the planning and funds) without betraying Tucson and Pima County. If fact, by doing this you are trying to improve the program and helping Tucson and Pima County. But if you attack the program, you are attacking the vital interests of southern Arizona.

I worry that local conservative politicians may be tempted to backslide on their support for the continuance of the Rio Nuevo TIF given recent news coverage of how the first $77 million have been spent (or mis-spent). I recent heard Vic Williams, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the House in LD 26, on Emil Franzi's radio program responding to a caller who was attacking Rio Nuevo by allowing that he would be open to cutting off the TIF funds and putting them back in the general fund. I have also heard Jon Paton whispering direly about the possibility of the Maricopa know-nothings acting to kill the TIF. In other words, the "censervatives" may want to take Tucson's tax revenues away from Tucson, leading the Tucson City Council to hurredly commit the money into the future by using the future revenue stream to back new bonds, both to accelerate the spending schedule to build political support and to make it politically more dicey for the know-nothings to pull Rio Nuevo's plug. If "conservative" ire continues to build, it could spell disaster for Tucson.

To those southern Arizona politicians who are tempted to fail to carry their weight in supporting and defending Rio Nuevo I say this: DON'T YOU DARE. By failing to stand up for Rio Nuevo's funding against all comers you will betray your home... and you will betray conservative principles.

How is supporting Rio Nuevo an issue of conservative principles? Conservatives say they are for local control, local government, and making decisions about how to spend our tax money as close to the citizens as possible. I happen to agree with these principles. I don't think they are necessarily conservative (they are merely democratic - note the small 'd'), but few conservatives would hesitate to claim them. Conservatives claim to be for lower taxes and doing more with the taxes we have. Great. Rio Nuevo's financing doesn't raise a single additional cent of taxes; it merely allows Tucson to retain sales taxes collected locally to spend locally on improving Tucson, instead of sending it to the capital for a bunch of other, less accountable politicians to spend. Add to this the fact that whole idea of redeveloping our downtown is to make Tucson a better place to build a business and raise a family, and I don't see how any real conservative could want anything other than for Rio Nuevo to continue and be a huge success. Rio Nuevo is a deeply conservative program.

Southern Arizona voters should make support for the Rio Nuevo program and it's funding an acid test for any politician wanting to hold any office in southern Arizona. And indications are that they already have. Even criticizing the implementation of Rio Nuevo's TIF may have cost Ted Downing a seat in the Arizona Senate in LD 28. In hindsight, his concerns about Rio Nuevo's accounting practices for keeping track of how the money was to be spent, and how much was being spent on consultants, were clearly right on the mark. But for even looking askance the implementation while everyone else was focused on boosterism to get the program reauthorized, Downing was pilloried and his concerns were mischaracterized and his fidelity to Tucson's interests impugned.

Let Downing serve as a warning, conservatives. Criticize the City Council all you want. Call for the heads. Call for better management, oversight, planning, accounting, whatever. But call for, or even intimate that you will do anything but sacrifice your political life to defend the funding of Rio Nuevo, and southern Arizona voters will call for your head.

Vic, I await your comment winding-back your radio faux pas :)

 

Arizona Week in Review

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

Furthering the story line is Bee's ads. Two of them so far and neither contains the words "GOP" or "Republican," instead using the line "Independence for a Change." Timmy, that seems rather derivative of and responsive to Giffords' tag "Because Change Can't Wait." Wow, with even conservatives wanting to run as change agents, and eshewing their party's label, it can't be more clear how utterly the GOP has fucked up.

Bee Stings Busy-Bodies:

Bee nixed the idea of an independent bi-partisan look into rule violations by Sen. Jack Harper to stop debate in the Arizona Senate so that the Gay Marriage Referendum could be considered. Standing in the breach to protect members of his caucus from accountability for dir1ty tricks isn't exactly the sort of co-operative, bi-partisan consensus building image that Bee is trying to sell to voters. Looks a lot more like "my party right or wrong" to me.

Endorse This:

It really grates on me to see elected officials taking sides in party primaries. The most irritating are Congressional primaries where Representatives from other districts endorse in a contested primary. Ann Kirkpatrick announced an endorsement from Harry Mitchell, adding to those she's already gotten from Governor Napolitano and Gabby Giffords.

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Poor Joe:

Pity poor Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpiao. Beaten in pinata-effigy by protesters at a book signing, his head came off and with carried about a bit by Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia (full disclosure: Isabel used to be my boss). The rightwing rant radio and usual bug-eating-crazy suspects, got a hold of that and had a field day: calling for Isabel's firing by the Pima County Board, bar discipline, actual beheading... whatev.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

Andy Thomas' Bad Case of Fascist Disease

Andy Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney, is asking the Arizona State Supreme Court [PDF] to declare him above the obligatory ethical standards of his profession. He wants to be declared exempt from the system of self-governance by which the ethical standards of the legal profession are enforced under the supervision and authority of the courts. Because he was elected, Andy claims to be untouchable, unquestionable and exempt from investigation by the state Bar.

His argument boils down to the fairly absurd idea that he is both the embodiment of the state and the attorney for the state; thus, everything he does in his job is protected by the attorney-client or executive privileges. He's claiming to be both client and attorney! Thus, even if there is an allegation that he has violated the ethics of his profession by his conduct in office, he asserts he cannot be held to account by a mere jury of his professional peers (which is an odd thing for a prosecutor to believe in...).

Andy has fallen victim to peculiar movement-conservative meme that posits elected officials are only accountable to the electorate, and then only at elections, and cannot be thwarted, investigated, or in any way made accountable by any other power. This is the fascist electoral theory of democracy and it has become a common virus circulating in certain conservative circles these days. I call it the "Fascist Disease". The most obvious symptom of the disease is criminal investigation, indictment, and conviction - as the disease causes its victims to believe themselves above the law. Many conservatives are showing these quite obvious symptoms these days.

Democrats aren't doing much to stem the spread of the outbreak, unfortunately. They allow a terribly virulent infection to fester at the heart of our political system, and it is spreading the contagion like wildfire: the Bush Administration, despite being a pack of criminals who have declared themselves above the law, continue to rule despite their obvious derangement by the disease. The Congress refuses to quarantine the infection by impeachment, and the disease is thereby encouraged to spread. Now it has claimed poor Andy Thomas.

The Arizona Bar, in their response to Andy's brief [PDF], use a nice analogy for Andy's theory about his immunity to the Bar's disciplinary system. The Bar's disciplinary system is essentially inquisitorial in nature: they function as both the police (investigating allegations of ethical violations instead of crimes) and the court (hearing evidence and making a decision on the merits). When the Bar receives a complaint, or creates a complaint based on press or court information, it first investigates to see if there is cause to continue taking evidence on the complaint. This is called screening and most complaints die a deserved death at this juncture.

Andy is asking the Court to take several complaints away from the Bar, even before a screening investigation begins. He doesn't want the Bar even to have the power to investigate complaints against him: it's as if he's a defense attorney asking an appeals court to take a case away from the police investigating a complaint and declare the police can't investigate the defendant - at all- for any reason - ever. It's about as bad an infection of Fascist Disease as I've ever diagnosed. Not only does Andy claim to be above the law, but he's above investigation by cops on his beat.

It's typical the fascist disease that its victims believe that the mystical power the electorate has invested in them cannot be abused, no matter how it's used. Well, we know better. Sorry, Andy, the law does constrain you; and the Bar, of which he is a member, has the power to discipline even a high-muckety office-holder like Andy, or Terry Goddard, or Janet Napolitano.

The Bar system is designed to screen complaints that haven't any merit. Already, 4 of the 7 complaints which Andy is asking the Court to take away from the Bar have been dismissed for lack of merit by the Bar. But the Bar is sensitive to any impression that the discipline process may not be perfectly objective and so they have offered to appoint a special master to handle the remaining complaints. If Andy was really so sure that these remaining complaints lack any merit, why not just let independent special master do his or her job? Or perhaps the problem is that Andy knows that these remaining complaints - specifically those stemming from his behavior during the New Times Affair - have a bit too much merit to risk allowing any objective screening of them? Perhaps the cop on the ethics beat will notice how badly Andy screwed up in his zeal to punish the newspaper hounding his buddy, Sheriff Joe "Biggest Joke of a Sheriff in America" Arpaio?

I won't presume to prejudge whether the complaints against Thomas and his bestest Kahuna, Dennis Wilenchik, have any merit (oh, who am I kidding? These guys are as ethical as two-dollar whores...) or whether the Bar's independent special master will even proceed with them (I sure hope so...). But I will eat my hat if the Supreme Court grants Andy an endorsement of his Fascist Disease-inspired fever dreams of unchecked power.

Bee-trayal

Tim Bee has just proven with this year's Arizona budget exactly how effective he'll be in working with a Democratic majority in Congress. I couldn't be happier to learn that even if Bee pulls off a miracle and beats Gabby, Tim has shown himself an utter pipsqueak who will knuckle under to Democrats without even extracting a political fig leaf.

Timmy conspired with Democrats to pass a budget with a grand total of just 8 Republican votes, four of whom do not face primaries. In fact, it would be entirely justified to view this year's budget as a Democratic budget that Bee gave a few Republicans cover to vote for. That's fantastic! My heart is a-flutter to know that when the chips are down, Timmy will fold.

Slightly more troubling, and deeply revelatory of Bee's true character, is the move that Bee hopes will save his bacon with his base for selling them down the river on the state budget: a gay marriage ballot referendum. In a very real sense, this legislative Kristalnacht is the major accomplishment of his Speakership, and the hallmark of his leadership. Bee doesn't have the stones to deliver a Republican budget, but he sure as hell can bash on the new Jews.

Congratulations Senator Bee, you've managed to reconcile the leadership styles of Neville Chamberlin and Adolph Hitler. That's an historic accomplishment.

Betrayal by the GAGA Arizona Democrats

Certain Arizona Democrats continue to Go Along to Get Along with the Bush agenda. Giffords and Mitchell voted to continue to fund the war in Iraq and to immunize tel-comms who broke the law at the behest of the Bush Administration, incidentally preventing discovery in those pending civil cases that could produce further evidence of criminality by this Administration.

Do you think that Tim Bee or any of the GOP wannabees in CD 5 would have voted any differently than these Democrats on these issues? Of course not - that's the point of these GAGA Dems 'strategy': to deny their GOP opponents a contrast issue. But if there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on these key issues, how will people see a difference between the parties when it comes time to go to the polls? They won't - and they'll stay home, which is the worst thing possible for the Democratic party. Apathy is good for the GOP and these Democrats are doing their best to ensure that voters will be apathetic about their ability to affect the most important issues of our time.

Why are Giffords and Mitchell goldbricking on the hardest political work facing our Party? Perhaps it's because they don't believe Democratic positions on these issues are the right ones, or because they feel those positions are too hard to explain to a public conditioned by fear for the past 7 years. In either case, one has to wonder if candidates who won't fight for and vote for Democratic positions are the best representatives of for the Democratic Party in their districts. If they won't fight for positions our Party overwhelmingly supports (withdrawal from Iraq and fighting for the rule of law with an outlaw Administration) then perhaps it is time to consider whether we need to find candidates who will take on the difficult issues without always putting their fingers in the wind first, and aping the positions of their GOP colleagues to avoid a fight.

Giffords and Mitchell are not only betraying our troops by keeping them in a pointless war of attrition that is undermining American security, and betraying our Constitution by letting this Administration violate Congressional laws and immunize their co-conspirators, they are betraying the Democratic Party by ensuring that voters won't see a difference between the parties on the issues that matter most in November. That might work to their advantage in their own races (I personally am of the opinion that they are wrong to think that), but it will certainly not help our Party rally public opinion to make the major course correction this country so desperately needs.

Gabby Giffords' Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES 

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES 

Harry Mitchell's Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YES 

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YES 

Contrast the GAGA Dems' votes on these issues with those of a real progressive Democrat like Rep. Grijalva. I have to wonder if Raul is regretting his early and strong support for Gabby in the 2006 primary. Without that support we might now have a real progressive in Congress voting like Grijalva on these vital issues.

Raul Grijalva's Votes:

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)

The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.

Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NO

---

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NO 

So which is it Gabby and Harry: is Grijalva undermining our national security with his thoroughly Democratic votes? Or are you undermining your own Party's credibility on these vital issues by voting against your caucus and siding with the wrong-headed GOP?

And in case you think I'm letting him off the hook: No, Obama's wrong on this issue, and playing the same short-sighted game as the GAGAs.

Actually, It's the Taxes, Stupid

Greg over at Espresso Pundit is on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) soapbox claiming that the current budget crunch in Arizona is not the result of the GOP majority constantly hacking away at our tax base and shifting it to more cyclical revenues (like sales tax, which is also more regressive), but due to run-away spending. Not only is the idea that spending is out of control in Arizona risible, but his favored solution, a TABOR in Arizona, is a simply the latest disastrously irresponsible idea from a party best known of late for its disastrous ideas and tragically poor judgment.

Here's the neat-o graph Greg thinks proves something:

What we see here is actual Arizona state budgets (The blue line) compared to a TABOR-limited hypothetical budget limit (the green line with triangles) that caps state expenditure growth to population increase plus inflation. Greg thinks that this proves that a TABOR-limited budget would have imposed greater spending discipline.

He might be right that state government spending would be less, but TABORs tend merely to shift costs off the books, not to reduce overall governmental costs. Local governments, special taxing districts and mechanisms, and other accounting tricks are used to meet citizens real needs while producing the accounting targets the TABOR requires.

And what essentail services can't be hidden from the reach of the TABOR's meat axe are often just hacked into indiscriminately. Now, I suppose that's fine for some conservatives... until and unless their own preferred state services are affected. How about we let a bunch of felons out of prison to save on incarceration costs? How about we stop building needed roads and other infrastructure, creating a massive investment deficit that will cripple our economy in the long-term? How about we under-invest in our schools and leave an entire generation without the skills to compete in a global economy?

Taxes are how a society invests in itself and accomplishes goals and functions no private citizen can. Conservatives seem to have forgotten that.

The main reason a TABOR is a poor substitute for a democratically responsive representative body making decisions about the public interest and providing the revenue to meet societies needs is that the formulaic approach of a TABOR makes a key assumption that is terribly naive and misinformed. TABORs assume that the grow in population plus inflation is always sufficient to deliver vital services.

There are a number of reasons why (PDF) that central assumption is as dumb as a box of rocks.

First, “no existing measure of inflation correctly captures the growth in
the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector, so the
inflation adjustment generally is not sufficient to allow the continuation
of existing services. State governments spend much of their money on
education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater
than the general rate of inflation. Within the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) itself, medical care and education have been growing at twice the
rate of the overall CPI.”

Second “the subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow
more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. For
example, while total population grew by 15.4 percent from 1990 to 2002
[in Colorado], total state prison population grew by 83 percent, disabled
children in schools grew by 35 percent, and the number of elderly and
disabled persons on Medicaid grew by 70 percent. Over the next 40
years, the elderly population will grow at twice the rate of general
population growth.”

Third, the population growth plus inflation formula “fails to take into
account the possibility that court, voter, or federal mandates may require
a state to take on new responsibilities. Mandates, whether internal or
external, may increase the responsibilities and costs borne by the state
without any proactive policy change on the part of state lawmakers.
Rigid tax and expenditure limits, such as those based on population
change and inflation, inadequately reflect the potential costs that may be
imposed on state and local governments.”

Fourth, “state governments inevitably face spending needs that cannot
be anticipated. Natural disasters, public health emergencies, economic
changes, and other such occurrences place expensive but unexpected
demands on state and local governments.”

And finally, because the “population growth plus inflation adjustment is
applied to the amount of actual expenditures or revenue in the prior
year,” when a states annual budget shrinks, a ratchet effect creates a
“new base [each year] to which the population growth and inflation
adjustment is applied [and in this case of a budget decrease] the level of
public services is permanently ratcheted down.”

TABORs are just simplistic and politically appealing suicide pacts. They destroy essential services and further infantilize our political culture by placing real desicion-making outside the reach of the political institutions where that power is supposed to reside. We should demand that our political leaders make real decisions regarding public revenue and expenditures, and be accountable for those decisions, instead of asking voters to so bind the government that it cannot even accomplish the basic function of deciding what revenue is needed to perform essential public functions.

RIP: TPD Officer Hite

Tucson Police Officer Erik Hite succumbed to injuries he sustained in the line of duty. His death is a tragic reminder of the risks our police officers, and other first responders take every day to keep our communities and our families safe.

The past few years have unfortunately numbed many to such tragedies. When someone pays the ultimate price of service right here in our community, we are all reminded of the honor due all who serve, and the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf.

The TPOA has set up a fund, which is accepting public donations, to help Officer Hite's family:

TPOA/Officer Erik Hite Benefit Fund
Wells Fargo Bank, account #2475164071

You don't actually need the account number to make a donation, just say it's for Officer Hite's Family. You can stop in at any local Wells Fargo branch to make a donation. Please spread the word.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas Fighting to Keep His License Abetted By His Merry Band of Fools

Link: Thomas to high court: Make Bar back off.

Thomas is in deep poop. Poop deposited with his own shovel, it should be pointed out. He's going on the offensive against seven bar complaints filed against him stemming from his office's miserable handling of the New Times affair and his unprecedented and irresponsible attempt to have the chief of the Maricopa bench disqualified from hearing any criminal cases.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

But the reason I felt a need to comment on Andy's on-going humiliation and long-past-due comeuppance is the way the media has framed the bar complaints, and the response it has drawn from some of our esteemed legislators.

The Media Framing:

Repeatedly I'm seeing the media note that there were 10 complaints pending against Andy and that 3 have already been dismissed. That's true, but it creates an impression that the complaints share a factual under-pinning, and thus it's inevitable that the remaining 7 will also be dismissed in short order.

That is manifestly not the case. The dismissed charges are completely unrelated to the shameful selective and retaliatory prosecution of the New Times and Andy's irresponsible ideologically-motivated attack on the Maricopa bench. The merits of the remaining 7 complaints are not in any way related to the dismissed 3. The only commonality among the 10 charges is that Thomas has run his office in a manner that draws Bar complaints like flies to... well, you know.

The Merry Band:

In an interesting turn of special pleading for their ideological brethren, the ideo-savants of our state legislature have endorsed the idea of turning over professional discipline to "an idependent agency" or the courts. I'll guarantee the courts don't want primary responsibility for bar discipline, and they already oversee it in an appellate capacity. The alternative is... you guessed it... bureaucrats. Probably politically-appointed, pointy-headed ones.

Funny how free-marketers seem always to turn to government in a pinch. They yowl about how industry should police itself at every turn, but when an industry does (with a great deal of effectiveness, and with a long track-record of success, I might add), they want to abolish it because they don't like the outcome for their fair-haired boy, Andy.

I think this about as good an idea of turning over professional oversight of doctors to insurance companies or some politically-motivated and unaccountable government agency. Real professionals involved in the delivery of professional services should preside over issues of professional responsibility and discipline. Only other practitioners, disciplined by election and oversight by their colleagues should be entrusted with the livlihoods and reputations of their fellow professionals.

The suggestion by the dolts in the legislature that it should be otherwise is an inexplicable rejection of time-tested good sense and the wisdom of tradition and experience that clearly indicates that these jokers are not any sort of conservatives, but societal vandals intent on only getting their own way and protecting their political allies at any cost. Real conservatives should be outraged and utterly disgusted by the venality and recklessness of this group of revolutionaries.

In case you are curious who these fools are, here's a list:

Sen. Robert Blendu
Sen. Bob Burns
Sen. Ron Gould
Sen. Chuck Gray (former police officer)
Sen. Linda Gray
Sen. Jack Harper
Sen. Karen Johnson (worked for a Sheriff)
Rep. Andy Biggs (attorney)
Rep. Judy Burges
Rep. Doug Clark
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (attorney?)
Rep. John Kavanagh (doctorate, criminal justice)
Rep. Warde Nichols 
Rep. Russell Pearce (former police officer)
Rep. Steve Yarbrough (attorney)

These folks just lost the right to call themselves conservatives with a straight face.

My particular contempt and derision is reserved for those who, due to their background and training, should understand the importance and deep tradition of the self-regulation of the Bar. Those who are attorneys, yet blithely advocate that hundreds of years of tradition should be thrown over for the convenience of a little schmuck like Andy are deserving of particular scorn.

Those without legal or law enforcement training could possibly plead ignorance of the role which the self-regulation of the legal profession has played in preserving our freedoms and vindicating our rights as free citizens: they are merely ignorant fools, easily led into folly. Those who have been police officers, or are attorneys have no such excuse for their perfidy. They are simply contemptible, and wear the name "conservative" as a mask for their true natures as politicians without any discernible principles.